When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you. All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. - John 16:13-15 (ESV)
Allegations have surfaced through the reporting of Julie Roys against Dr. Michael Brown regarding an inappropriate relationship 23 years ago at his Charismaniacal FIRE school. An early glance at the accusations reveals that much of what is alleged Brown does not necessarily dispute although he maintains there was nothing sexually inappropriate and has never had an extramarital affair. I want to be clear, this is not similar to the accusations that first came out against Mike Bickle, where you knew the smoke indicated something was very much on fire. Is it plausible that this was some kind of a "one-off?" That this was just one relationship with someone Brown admits was very close to him and his wife? Sure, it is plausible. The question over the next few weeks is if there are cracks in the story that has been offered up on either side and of course, if there are other accusers. Realize this beloved. Dr. Michael Browen deserves the presumption of innocence, just like any other person who stands accused in this country. God knows what did and what did not happen. What Brown does not deserve is blanket exoneration or condemnation until all the facts are known. He is a very powerful person within the Charismaniacal Industrial Complex, so what I worry about is Charisma mobilizing their resources against the victim to protect the brand. This is what they did when the Bickle story came out and the onslaught against the truth was relentless. This is why victims stay silent for so long. Let us reason once more through the statement released by Brown in response to these allegations, linked above.
"In
recent weeks, very serious accusations have come to me and my board concerning
events from 23 years ago. Upon receiving the news, both Nancy and I were
shocked and horrified by the mix of accusations, allegations, false statements,
and mischaracterizations. That's why we wholeheartedly supported our board's immediate decision to launch a thorough
third-party
investigation." - Dr. Michael Brown
Realize that Dr. Brown is a Jedi Master when it comes to spin and this
statement sure starts to smell just like that. Note that he characterizes the
accusations as a mix of four negative things. Accusations, allegations, false
statements and mischaracterizations. What's missing? Truth. He later admits
that some of his actions towards this woman were foolish and irresponsible. Well,
which is it? Dr. Brown would admit that the appearance of impropriety is just
as important for ministers than actually being inappropriate. It is interesting
to note that his board did not choose a third-party investigator that
specializes in clergy abuse but rather a prominent criminal defense law firm
from Arizona. I would be curious if the accuser is satisfied with the choice of
investigators. Either way, it is good the Brown agrees wholeheartedly, which is
something IHOP resisted every step of the way when it came to Mike Bickle.
"I can categorically state that in my 53 years in the Lord and more than 50 years with Nancy, I have never committed adultery or been sexually intimate with another woman, nor do the charges allege that. Yet I must ask, in all humility and in the fear of the Lord, if an article on the Roys Report is the best way to address these allegations and accusations. Does this glorify the Lord, edify the Body, bring healing and restoration, or advance the cause of truth?" - Dr. Michael Brown
I guess that depends on how you define sexually intimate. Physical adultery is clear in its definition and it does not sound like even the accuser is alleging that. Unfortunately, it sounds like the accuser is describing the slippery slope that might have led to something more inappropriate if it were not ceased. These are the steps within grooming that we often hear had led to the sexually inappropriate relationship. The accuser states that while they had a father-daughter type relationship that behaviors intensified over time. Hand-holding in and of itself is problematic but if that were the only questionable activity, this would be a non-story. The handholding however made other people question Brown at the time. This then led to the victim stating that Brown asked her for a kiss on the lips and that soon, this was the expected greeting and way of saying goodbye. The Roys Report cites different witnesses discussing the interactions between Brown and the woman, who was between 18-25 when this all occurred. That includes people walking into Brown's office and seeing the girl on his lap, seeing a note from the girl with Brown's name on it with hearts drawn all over it. A different witness saw the girl snuggling with Brown and sitting on her lap also noted that his actual daughter never did such things. The other disturbing accusation is that Brown would smack the girl on the butt, playfully. Are any of these accusations or instances adultery? No. They are what leads to adultery. Grooming is the strategy used to break down defenses. It starts with handholding because that is easily defensible and can be written off as innocent. Asking for a kiss on the lips is a step up from that. Things like sitting on one's lap or smacking their bottom however is another level. With each level achieved, the path towards adulterous behavior grows far easier to navigate. The victim stated that Brown just started to assume the goodbye salutation would be a kiss on the lips and she felt she could not say no. Let me say that again - she felt as if she could not say no.
The
more concerning point Brown tries to make here however is the notion that the article
on Julie Roys website is somehow the problem. It is not. The problem is in
someone who was so preachy about holiness, especially during the time, actually
behaving foolishly and irresponsibly with a woman half his age. So, spare us
the "with all humility and fear of the Lord." Do you know what glorifies the
Lord Doc? The truth does. The key verses show that the Holy Spirit is called
the Spirit of Truth and He will guide us into all truth and He will glorify
Christ. Sure, these verses are speaking about the word of God but truth is
always central. There is no deception in God and Dr. Brown knows this. What he
is complaining about is the vehicle the victim used to convey this truth. Brown
is upset about that because he cannot control the flow of information. Does it
edify the body? Absolutely! The body of Christ needs to know if someone who has
claimed to be the voice of moral sanity and spiritual clarity has been building
this image upon disqualifying behavior! The truth advances the cause of the
truth - not trying to keep things hush-hush. Realize that Brown is trying to do
here is to victim-blame. Well, even if she is right, her methods are now
spiritually questionable? It really is predictable. The Matthew 18 argument is
the first refuge of the accused. Brown just did not like that he got called out
in public. Not a great sign either.
"Nancy and I did have a relationship with the woman in question and
considered her to be like a family member, and she conducted herself as one who viewed our relationship the
same way. But she was not a family member, and aspects of my interaction with her, although
totally non-sexual in every way, reflected a definite lack of judgment on my part. Before she
relocated to another state in August 2002, she informed me that our interaction
months earlier had made her uncomfortable. And so Nancy and I met with her
immediately in the spirit of Matthew 18, I apologized to her from the heart, we
talked things through together, after which, to our knowledge, everything was
good between us. In the years that followed, at least through 2015, she
contacted me sharing family updates, sending prayer requests, and checking in
on Nancy and me. Naturally, we thought that everything was fine in every way.
How could we have known otherwise? As to allegations that I stifled those who
questioned the nature of our relationship, it is because they accused me of
having an affair. Of course I rebutted those ridiculous charges. At no time
over the years did anyone approach me, asking me or my ministry to conduct a
third-party investigation." - Dr. Michael Brown
Sure enough, we come to Matthew 18. It is important to note here that his
earlier concern about this being adjudicated through Julie Roys was predicated
upon it somehow was an improper forum, indicating the old, did you use Matthew
18 argument. Now we see, they did use Matthew 18. This also reveals that Brown
was aware that she felt troubled by his behavior. So, at the time Brown was
aware, met with the victim and tried to smooth things over. I have no reason to
doubt he apologized but obviously, it was not as resolved for the victim as it
was for the accused. Considering the dynamic in play here, this is not
unsurprising. Dr. Brown wanted this over with. Meet, say your sorry, everyone
forgives and moves on. The victim however, probably was embarrassed, especially
if Brown insisted on having his wife attend. I will also assume that the more
disturbing accusations may have never even been made since Brown is reacting
now as if he is surprised by them. It is also continuously disturbing that Brown
uses vague references to things that lacked judgment, or were foolish and
irresponsible. Looking only what we know and what was alleged things do align.
Perhaps the victim felt kissing on the lips by a married man twice her age and
her spiritual mentor was predatory in nature where Dr. Brown just felt it was lacking
in judgment. Perhaps the victim took the butt slapping is wildly inappropriate while
Dr. Brown just registered it as foolish and irresponsible. I am also unsure if
Matthew 18 truly applies here. The Charismaniacal cover-up industry always
tries to say that Mattthew 18 should be used to prevent things from becoming
public. Dr. Brown and this 18-year-old sheep were not peers. The victims of
Mike Bickle were not his peers. They were his sheep. It sounds like the victim
here allowed the first stage of Matthew 18 to play out and while Dr. Brown
thought it was resolved, it obviously was not for her. The next step in Matthew
18 is to take it to the church and that is what she has done by going through
Julie Roys. Granted it took 23 years in between but if she genuinely felt violated
by someone in a position of spiritual authority there are reasons why. Many victims
block it out. Many feel that they will be bringing reproach upon Christianity
itself. Many feel residual guilt for the role they may have willingly played in
the abuse. Perhaps after decades of watching Brown play the moral culture
warrior and leader on the things of holiness, the butt slaps kept coming back.
Maybe she got tired of watching Brown provide cover for people like Donad
Trump, Mike Bickle and refer to Ravi Zacharias as a great holiness preacher.
Whatever the reason, now it is out there and let the investigation play out.
